Uber Technologies Inc. halted autonomous vehicle tests after one of its cars struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Arizona, in what is likely the first pedestrian fatality involving the technology.
The 49-year-old woman, Elaine Herzberg, was crossing the road outside of a crosswalk when the Uber vehicle operating in autonomous mode under the supervision of a human safety driver struck her, according to the Tempe Police Department.
After the incident, which happened at 10 p.m. local time on Sunday, she was transferred to a nearby hospital, where she died from her injuries. “Uber is assisting and this is still an active investigation,” Liliana Duran, a Tempe police spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.
Uber said on Monday that it was pausing tests of all its self-driving vehicles on public roads in Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Toronto and the greater Phoenix area. “Our hearts go out to the victim’s family,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement. “We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident.”
Companies including Alphabet Inc., General Motors Co., Uber and Baidu Inc. are investing billions of dollars to develop autonomous-vehicle technology because it has the potential to transform the auto industry, transportation in general and the way cities work. One analyst has estimated Alphabet’s Waymo unit is worth at least $70 billion. The fatality in Tempe could slow testing, delay commercialization and undermine such optimism.
Testing has expanded to complex urban areas as states like Arizona and Texas take a light-touch regulatory approach and companies race to be first to commercialize the technology. That’s helped improved the systems, but also increased the chance of a pedestrian death. Experts have long worried about the impact deadly crashes could have on the nascent industry.
“We’re within the phase of autonomous vehicles where we’re still learning how good they are. Whenever you release a new technology there’s a whole bunch of unanticipated situations,” said Arun Sundararajan, a professor at New York University’s business school. “Despite the fact that humans are also prone to error, we have as a society many decades of understanding of those errors.”
Twitter Profile With No Tweets Or Followers Suspended
New England – A Twitter page for a group called New England Identitarians was temporarily suspended evidently for using the word “Identitarian”. The page had zero followers at the time, and was yet to even make a tweet. In fact, the page was set to private.
Regardless of what you might think of “Identitarian” ideology, most people can agree that the word itself shouldn’t trigger a ban from the public square, which is what social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter are functioning as. The First Amendment was intended to protect the public from government censorship, but in the current day the main medium for public discourse is social media. Practically speaking, there is no difference. It must be lawfully determined if these companies are neutral platforms, or if they function as publishers with editorial judgement.
The same goes for the popular video platform YouTube as well. Formerly known as a free speech medium, it’s now only friendly for what are deemed acceptable opinions. Across all of these sites, “hate speech” is broadly used as an excuse to censor political views that the company doesn’t like, with a strong partisan bias against conservatives. Other free speech friendly social media networks to try are Telegram, Gab, and Parlor. An up-and-coming alternative to YouTube is BitChute. For livestreaming, there’s D’Live. Perhaps it’s time that we all begin to migrate away from the tyrannical mainstream sites.
Social Media is the Biggest Threat to America… It’s Time to Break Them Up
After the another mass ban by Facebook and Instagram of Alex Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, and Paul Joseph Watson, it is evermore clear and a massive warning to all conservatives that they are not welcome on social media platforms. Something that should also be considered illegal considering their ‘public square’ standing and non-publisher status, which saves them from sued for libel but [should] curtail their ability to promote, dissuade, or ban content based on their choice.
Facebook went as far to even say they’ll ban anyone or organization that shares content from Alex Jones, Infowars, or any of the banned people mentioned, maybe even more.
Facebook is also conducting election-meddling. Gang Emperor Yang, a meme page for Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, was removed less than a month ago.
President Trump has yet to act on this, ironically without social media Donald Trump would never be President. Considering the Media, Entertainment, and Political monopolies are aligned against him it seems maddening that President Trump hasn’t done one thing besides offer the suggestion to “be good” online.
Despite the fact that it’s hard to find to find any popular conservative right besides Ben Shapiro on the internet. When 2020 roles around it’s going to for Donald Trump’s old coalition to remain strong when his followers, his greatest allies in media, and people who helped get elected directly are being de-platformed, silenced, and banned off of social media.
Facebook Fired Pro-Trump & Anti Hillary Founder of Oculus
Every so often, Silicon Valley’s virtue-signaling, shadowbanning, anti-conservative media titans appear in Congress or devise a quick PR campaign to show to the world just how truly impartial they are with zero liberal bias. And every single time it backfires as their true ideological face quickly emerges from behind a fake, hypocritical mask.
Take the case of former Facebook executive, Oculus co-founder and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey, who was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated a modest $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group. His donation sparked a backlash from his colleagues, which then led to him being put on leave, and six months later he was fired.
What is odd about Luckey’s termination, is that when testifying before Congress about data privacy earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg denied, or rather lied that the departure had anything to do with politics. In fact, neither Facebook nor Mr. Luckey ever said why he left the social-media giant.
Until now: according to a report from the WSJ, Luckey told people the reason for his termination from that bastion of apolitical impartiality Facebook, was his support for Donald Trump and the furor that his political beliefs sparked within his employer, and Silicon Valley, some of those people say.